On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 1:33 PM, Colin Walters <walters@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 3:16 PM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > I can say that OpenNMS won't currently work with a 1.6 version because it's > > developers have said so. > > So what you're really saying is Fedora doesn't support Java < 6 very > well. I don't think anyone would disagree, but you have to understand > it's not a very interesting problem; these projects should really be > working to update for 6, regardless of Fedora or OpenJDK - Java 5 is > in pure maintenance mode now. > > I'm sure there's a fair amount of software out there that doesn't work > on Java 6, but it's not "most" by a long shot. > It depends on the sphere of software... 90% of our business software only works on 1.4.2 and the other 10% only works on 1.5. And so does all of the java apps the company programmers have written to work with the closed source stuff. When we asked when they would support 1.6.. the word was they weren't.. they would go to 1.7 when it was released or .NET because Java was just not 'stable' enough for them. While thats all closed source.. the mindset affects others who work on Java in the open. > > > It's been well known for years how to install the proprietary > > > JDK; > > > > > > > Well known by? > > Really...it's in a lot of FAQs, etc. > Agreed. > > That would have been just fine, but there have been long intervals where > > jpackage has not had a suitable repo (and again, I don't see any reason that > > should even have needed to change across fedora versions since java code is > > pretty much independent of anything else) > > Perhaps; I've personally only used the jpackage shims on RHEL (which > is much closer to jpackage's target audience). > > > and in earlier conversations here > > I thought someone said the relationship was deliberately broken with > > portions moved into fedora packages and the rest ignored. > > If Fedora and JPackage were on Facebook, the relationship status would > be "It's complicated". But we are cooperating on many levels, and I > would certainly not call it broken. > Well better than "Incestous.. keep clotting drugs close by." > Bottom line - should Fedora ship the proprietary JDK shim? I don't > think it's worth the user confusion over just telling people to go to > JPackage, but if someone stepped up, did the work, and submitted it > and was going to maintain/own it, it might happen. > > -- > fedora-devel-list mailing list > fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list > -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice" -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
